- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 11:20:53 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: [...] >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements Not really; this was intended to represent a different issue - this is the old statement v stating debate which I'm not inclined to open up now. The issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph is the one I intended to cover this. However, I also can recall no formal decision on the set/bag question. The general direction of this thread seems sensible. I appologies for getting behind on email last week as a result of communication difficulties. Has anyone proposed some test cases. Brian Brian >> >> and it is under the category Issues Awaiting Consideration. >> >>> The MT would give the same interpretation for equivalent arcs in a >>> multigraph, wouldn't it? >> >> >> Pat - does the MT address [1]? > > > No, it has no opinion. It would give the same meaning to a graph with a > repeated triple as it would to the one with the repetition removed. I > would vote for bags on the grounds that they are harmless and put less > of a burden on implementors, but that's me talking, not the MT. > > Pat >
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 06:25:14 UTC